Posted on 10/11/2006 4:28:03 PM PDT by SandRat
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11, 2006 – Winning the global war on terror requires a national consensus, with support demonstrated in actions as well as words, the Army’s chief of staff told hundreds of soldiers and defense industry representatives here yesterday.
That means ensuring troops on the front lines have what they need to succeed, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker told attendees at the Association of the U.S. Army annual meeting.
Soldiers have a reasonable expectation that their country will ensure they’re trained, equipped and resourced for the missions they’re called to conduct, the general said. “This resonates loud and clear,” he said. “It echoes an almost sacred duty for those of us in a position of responsibility.
“As we look back on the Army’s accomplishments and leap forward to meet future challenges, everything we do must be judged against the standard of preparedness,” he said. “In fact, by meeting our soldiers’ expectations, we will uphold our responsibility to them and they will be a relevant and ready force.”
Schoomaker cited sweeping transformation efforts under way in the Army so it’s prepared to face current and future challenges. New equipment, evolving doctrine and the incorporation of lessons learned into training and operations are creating a stronger, more agile force, he said.
That’s critical as the Army confronts “perhaps the most dangerous period in our lifetime” in the global war on terror, he said.
“While we must prevail, victory is not assured,” the general warned, noting that the United States is “much closer to the beginning than the end” of the war.
Schoomaker expressed concern that national support for the war on terror has been “tepid,” noting that just 4 percent of the United States’ gross national product is committed to defense. This compares to 38 percent during World War II.
“Ultimately, victory requires a national strategic consensus … in words and actions,” he said. “Another 9/11 should not have to occur to shake us into action.”
Ensuring that the force receives the funding it needs “is a matter of national priority, not a matter of affordability,” Schoomaker said.
The general thanked soldiers for “answering the nation’s call to duty in this time of war” and praised their skill, professionalism and adherence to the warrior ethos and Army values. “Their dedication and optimism about our future is contagious,” he said.
Today’s leaders serve as “caretakers for this generation of soldiers, … who will continue to meet America’s challenges long after we take our uniforms off,” he said.
“Like their predecessors, today’s soldiers continue to distinguish themselves in many ways, demonstrating initiative, resilience and innovation at all levels,” he said. “I am proud to report that our soldiers serving on our nation’s behalf continue to exceed every expectation of courage, dedication and selfless service. They are the heart of all that we do. … They are also our future.”
Schoomaker vowed to help ensure these troops have what they need to carry out the tasks they’re assigned -- from combat operations to humanitarian support missions and everything in between.
“Their expectations are high, but they are not selfish,” he said of America’s soldiers. “And chief among them is an expectation to be prepared to fight wars and any missions the nation assigns our Army.”
All this won't happen, if Dem'crats win even a small majority in either the House or Senate. Their first objective will be to defund the Department of Defense, then to have Donald Rumsfeld removed as Secretary of Defense, or at least have him rendered impotent.
But the big kahuna is to bring articles of impeachment against George W. Bush, which shall not succeed, but will have the effect of making this nation essentially ungovernable until they are reined in.
Maybe by authorative enforcement of applicable statutes already on the books and a few jail sentences.
Then I am afraid we have lost.
Nonsense!
“Another 9/11 should not have to occur to shake us into action.”
Sadly, that's probably what it will take. 9/11 shut up the libs for a while, and then their egos reappeared and they realized "hey, we've got to win some elections here."
Foley's case exposed them for the hyprocrits that they are. Imagine bleeding heart libs concerned about the health and welfare of young people, when abortions, and the exploitation of white house interns do not matter.
The libs do not want the government involved in personal matters such as abortion, but they want the govt involved to pay for it.
Wonderful graphics. Thanks for the ping.
U.S. May Need To Mobilize For Terror War
By John E. Carey
Posted first on September 28, 2006
The United States never mobilized to fight the war against terror. That means our full industrial might, our full economic might, and the focus of many of our government departments is not thoroughly embracing the war effort.
On September 25, 2006, more than five years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste told Senators during his appearance before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, "We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge."
General Batiste was joined by two others in agreement: retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Paul X. Hammes.
There is also the voice of James K. Kallstrom. The former FBI Assistant Director and the man who was in charge of the criminal investigation in the crash of TWA Flight 800, Mr. Kallstrom is now Advisor to the Governor of New York for Counter –Terrorism.
On the Fox News Channel on September 27, Mr. Kallstrom said, “We haven’t yet done a lot of common sense things here at home” to fight the war on terror. He added, “We are in a massive war and I am afraid most Americans have no idea….”
We know for a fact that Mr. Kallstrom believes, as we do, that the United States has totally failed in its “war of hearts and minds” against the terrorists. When asked about the "hearts and minds" effort in the war on terror on September 11, 2006, he said, "Quite frankly I don't think we are doing that great a job."
The other side, people such as Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) says: no need to mobilize because we’ll just pull out. As David Ignatius noted in the Washington Post on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, “There is not a single government in the Middle East, with the possible exceptions of Iran and Syria, that favors a rapid U.S. pullout from Iraq. Why? The consensus in the region is that a retreat now would have disastrous consequences for America and its allies. Yet withdrawal is the Iraq strategy you hear from most congressional Democrats, whether they call it ‘strategic redeployment’ or something else.”
This is a pretty wide gap; in fact an abyss. Do we need to just get out of Iraq now or mobilize the nation? Or perhaps a third path: stay the course.
General Batiste would probably liken “stay the course” to a cat hanging by its claws on a sheer curtain.
So, shouldn’t we get to the bottom of this? Are we expected to vote in November with no additional information, no clue as to who holds the position closest to the truth?Are American men and women expected to fight and die while many know there is more we, as a nation, can do to make and keep them safer?
From The Washington Times
Published September 11, 2006
By John E. Carey
We should not be complacent. As the president has said: This will be a long war.
So what is our weakness? Our Achilles heel is our own resolve. Our weakness is our own lack of unity, now exacerbated by an election cycle.
And our enemies are still with us. In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defies not just the United States but the entire international community. He is the first president ever to defy the United Nations in the pursuit of nuclear projects. He pushes ahead despite U.N. Resolutions to the contrary.
What are Mr. Ahmadinejad's goals? Well, he calls the United States the Great Satan. Israel is only the little Satan. And he blithely says he intends to "wipe the Zionist state off the map." So what will his plan be for the Great Satan?
And in North Korea, an attention-seeking dictator has nuclear weapons and strives to perfect his long-range ballistic missiles.
So, like the Roman Emperors, we face the Huns on many fronts.
And like our forefathers in Rome and in other great civilizations, we have to guard against our own disagreements and divisions from becoming crippling. We have to watch our Achilles heel.
Because our enemies are real. And they want to win.
Yet here in the United States we are politically divided and that, it would seem, erodes our will to win and our national determination. Our enemies certainly know this. To our enemies, it might not be crystal clear we are indivisible in our determination, with a national plan to succeed.
.....
One potentially helpful discussion could come from renewed hearings on the progress of the war in congressional committees. These would have to be not political grandstanding committee meetings to skewer Mr. Rumsfeld, but genuine, bipartisan and adult discussions on how to proceed to achieve what we want in the war. This will require statesmanship not showmanship.
Because before too long we have to either open the tool kit of our thinking and win or put our hammer away and go home. The alternative is that the president's current methodology will continue.
Vice President Dick Cheney echoed some of the president's recent statements at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno on Aug. 28: "A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be... a ruinous blow to the future security of the United States."
We need to get what we want in Iraq. What we do not want, if it can be avoided and there are better alternatives, is a decades long conflict called GWOT and a continuing and festering divide between the U.S. and the entire Islamic world.
To get what we want we may need more bipartisan thinking; and some bipartisan agreement and leadership on our nation's strategy to win -- or do something else.
By John E. Carey
The Washington Times
"Redefining War"
Didn't Rummy slap down a statement today that Schoomaker made about the manning levels in Iraq, like he was speaking out of school?
Don't know, spend my days locked in a SCIF with no recievers.
The United States never mobilized to fight the war against terror. That means our full industrial might, our full economic might, and the focus of many of our government departments is not thoroughly embracing the war effort.
What the heck does this mean? WHAT do you want our industry to do? WHAT do you want our economy to do? WHAT do you want our government departments to do?
None of these illusive terms like "focus" or "embrace".....WHAT EXACTLY do you want done?
Batiste told Senators during his appearance before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, "We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge."
Ohfercryinoutloud...Batiste? The Democrats? "mobilize our country...." while the *blank* bad mouths the leadership of our country?
General Batiste was joined by two others in agreement: retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Paul X. Hammes
Frankly, I don't give a rat's arse what these has been retired men have to say. Eaton? The guy that FAILED at his assignment to train the Iran army? Gimme a break.
The Generals' Revolt
Mr. Kallstrom said, “We haven’t yet done a lot of common sense things here at home” to fight the war on terror. He added, “We are in a massive war and I am afraid most Americans have no idea….”
One more time - EXACTLY WHAT "common sense things" are we to do? Hmmmmmmmmm?
We know for a fact that Mr. Kallstrom believes, as we do, that the United States has totally failed in its “war of hearts and minds” against the terrorists. When asked about the "hearts and minds" effort in the war on terror on September 11, 2006, he said, "Quite frankly I don't think we are doing that great a job."
Please provide us with some qualification this man has to comment on the "hearts and minds" effort. And who is the "we" you referred to in the first line? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Have you OR Kallstrom been to Iraq lately? Or Afghanistan?
Is THIS the Jame's Kallstrom to whom you refer?
JAMES KALLSTROM, Director FBI NYC '95-'97
After sixteen months, the FBI concluded its criminal investigation into the downing of TWA Flight 800.
JAMES KALLSTROM: Based upon all the scientific and forensic evidence analyzed to date, we cannot conclude that TWA Flight 800 crashed as a result of an explosive device.
Hmmmmmmmmm, Eyewitnesses on that July 17, 1996 night said they saw the Boeing 747 with 230 people on-board explode in mid-air.
Guess no one can believe their lying eyes anymore.
Murtha (D-PA) says: no need to mobilize because we’ll just pull out.
The day John al-Murthawi is elected President of the USA, he can pull out.
David Ignatius noted ..... “There is not a single government in the Middle East, with the possible exceptions of Iran and Syria, that favors a rapid U.S. pullout from Iraq......Yet withdrawal is the Iraq strategy you hear from most congressional Democrats, whether they call it ‘strategic redeployment’ or something else.”
LOL! A member of the ENEMEDIA makes more sense than a DemonRAT. We are making progress.
Do we need to just get out of Iraq now or mobilize the nation? Or perhaps a third path: stay the course.
I find it telling that you say; "Or perhaps a third path: stay the course." This decision was made on November 2, 2004 when PRESIDENT George W. Bush was re-elected. It is NOT a "third path" - it is THE path, chosen by the vast majority of the American people. The sooner the DemonRATS and the ENEMEDIA accept this simple truth, the sooner we can win the WOT.
General Batiste would probably .....
Again, I don't give a rip what Batiste has to say. I never voted for him and the PRESIDENT has not included him as one of his advisors.
So, shouldn’t we get to the bottom of this? Are we expected to vote in November with no additional information, no clue as to who holds the position closest to the truth?
What ARE you talking about. If you have "no clue" at this point I am begging you not to vote.
It's not rocket science.....
1. We pull out of Iraq and sit back and watch millions of Iraqis be slaughtered, much like the Vietnam experience, then wait for the terrorists to come here for us.
2. We mobilize the nation ..... whatever that means.
3. We STAY THE COURSE and COMPLETE THE MISSION.
Simply put our objective is an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, defend itself, and be an ally in this war on terror.
You can read the complete National Strategy for Victory in Iraq HERE
Are American men and women expected to fight and die while many know there is more we, as a nation, can do to make and keep them safer?
Again with the nuance. WHAT EXACTLY can we "as a nation" do" to keep them safer? QUIT a mission they understand and believe in?
Our awesome men and women in the military volunteered to fight this war. They WANT to fight it and they WANT to win it. If the wanted to be "safe" they would have stayed home under their beds. I have never met braver more determined individuals in my life as our current troops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.